Ex Parte Goodwin et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 7, 2017

14627780 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 7, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O.Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
14/627,780 02/20/2015 Michael E. Goodwin 11398.127.2 2450
137270 7590 09/11/2017
Workman NvHeaaer/I ife Teohnnlnaies; Gnrnnrotirm
EXAMINER
60 East South Temple, Suite 1000
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
RASHID, FAZLE A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1774
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/11/2017 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
docketing@wnlaw.com
LSGDocketing@thermofisher.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MICHAEL E. GOODWIN, WADE A. CORNIA, and
JACOB D. LEE
Applicant: LIFE TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION1
Appeal 2017-002160
Application 14/627,780
Technology Center 1700
Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, MONTE T. SQUIRE, and
JANE E. INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judges.
INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant requests our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of a final
rejection of claims 1—9, 11—19, and 21.2 We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 The applicant, and thus Appellant, Life Technologies Corporation, is the
real party in interest. App. Br. 2.
2 Appellant cancelled claim 20 in an amendment filed February 29, 2016,
and the Examiner confirmed entry of the amendment in an Advisory Action
entered March 24, 2016.
Appeal 2017-002160
Application 14/627,780
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant claims a fluid mixing system. Appeal Brief filed July 26,
2016 (“App. Br.”), 2—5. Claims 1 and 19 illustrate the subject matter on
appeal and are reproduced below:
1. A fluid mixing system comprising:
a support housing having an interior surface bounding a
compartment, the support housing having a floor and a sidewall
upstanding therefrom, an opening extending through the sidewall
and communicating with the compartment;
a rack disposed on the support housing so that at least a
portion of the rack is disposed outside of the compartment of the
support housing, the rack being configured as an elongated bar
onto which one or more hangers may be removably mounted;
a first hanger comprising:
an elongated shaft having a first end and an
opposing second end, the first end of the shaft being
removably mounted to the elongated bar so that the second
end projects outwardly away from the sidewall of the
support housing; and
a fastener disposed at the second end of the shaft
that is capable of engaging a first tube; and
a second hanger comprising:
an elongated shaft having a first end and an
opposing second end, the second end of the second hanger
projecting outwardly away from the sidewall of the
support housing, the first end of the shaft being removably
mounted to the same elongated bar as the first hanger, so
that the elongated bar includes at least two hangers
mounted thereto; and
a fastener disposed at the second end of the
elongated shaft of the second hanger that is capable of
engaging a second tube.
19. A fluid mixing system comprising:
a support housing having an interior surface bounding a
compartment, the support housing having a floor and a sidewall
2
Appeal 2017-002160
Application 14/627,780
upstanding therefrom, an access port extending laterally through
the sidewall and communicating with the compartment;
a door movably mounted to the support housing to
selectively cover at least a portion of the access port, an opening
extending through the door so as to communicate with the
compartment, whether the door is open or closed;
a rack disposed on the door so as to be at least partially
disposed outside of the compartment; and
a first hanger comprising:
an elongated shaft having a first end and an
opposing second end, the first end of the shaft being
removably mounted to the rack so that the second end
projects outwardly away from the sidewall of the support
housing; and
a fastener disposed at the second end of the shaft;
and
a collapsible bag bounding a chamber, the collapsible bag
being at least partially disposed within the compartment of the
support housing, a member projecting from the collapsible bag,
through the opening in the door and coupling with the fastener of
the hanger.
Supplemental Appeal Brief filed September 9, 2016, 3, 7.
The Examiner sets forth the following rejections in the Final Office
Action entered December 31, 2015 (“Final Act.”), and maintains the
rejections in the Answer entered October 6, 2016 (“Ans.”):
I. Claims 1—4, 8, 11, 16—18, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) and
§ 102(e) as anticipated by Jia (US 2009/0255288 Al, published Oct. 15,
2009);
II. Claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Jia in
view of Campos Del Olmo et al. (US 2009/0196726 Al, published Aug. 6,
2009);
3
Appeal 2017-002160
Application 14/627,780
III. Claims 6, 7, and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Jia in view of Goodwin et al. (US 2006/0240546 Al, published Oct. 26,
2006);
IV. Claims 12—15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Jia in view of Bibbo et al. (US 6,923,567 B2, issued Aug. 2, 2005); and
V. Claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Goodwin in view of Di Cristofaro (US 2010/0301672 Al, published Dec. 2,
2010).
DISCUSSION
Upon consideration of the evidence relied-upon in this appeal and the
respective positions of the Examiner and Appellant, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—4, 8, 11, 16—18, and 21 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a) and § 102(e), and rejections of claims 5—7, 9, 12—15, and 19 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a), for the reasons set forth in the Appeal Brief and below.
Rejections I—IV
We decide the appeal as to Rejection I based on claim 1 because the
remaining claims subject to this ground of rejection (claims 2-4, 8, 11, 16—
18, and 21) depend from claim 1, and thus include all the limitations of
claim 1. We separately address Rejections II—IV below.
The Examiner finds that Jia discloses a system comprising a cube
housing and an elongated bar-shaped mainframe body 1 (rack) disposed on
the housing. Final Act. 3 (citing Jia 125, Fig. 2). The Examiner finds that
Jia discloses that the system further comprises first and second handles 2, 2’
(hangers) that each include vertically oriented shafts having upper ends
removably anchored to mainframe body 1 (rack). Final Act. 3^4 (citing Jia
121, Fig. 2). Relying on Figure 2 of Jia, the Examiner finds that Jia’s first
4
Appeal 2017-002160
Application 14/627,780
and second handles 2, 2’ thus correspond to the first and second hangers
recited in claim 1 having first ends removably mounted to a rack. Final Act.
3^4.
However, Appellant points out that Jia explicitly discloses that
handles 2, 2’ “are fixed to mainframe body 1 on two sides by any
conventional way in the art.” App. Br. 6—7; Jia ^21. In response, the
Examiner asserts that fixing Jia’s handles 2, 2’ to mainframe body 1 by “any
conventional way in the art” would include removable mounting, and the
Examiner relies on Figure 2 of Jia for supposedly disclosing this feature.
Ans. 15. However, the Examiner does not explain how the structure
illustrated in Figure 2 establishes that first ends of Jia’s handles 2, 2’ are
removably mounted to mainframe body 1. Final Act. 3^4. Consequently,
the Examiner does not identify any disclosure in Jia that clearly and
unequivocally indicates that handles 2, 2’ are removably mounted to
mainframe body 1.
Therefore, the Examiner fails to establish that Jia discloses first and
second handles 2, 2’ (hangers) removably anchored to mainframe body 1
(rack) as recited in claim 1. We therefore do not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1—4, 8, 11, 16—18, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) and
§ 102(e) as anticipated by Jia (Rejection I). Because the additional
references applied by the Examiner in Rejections II—IV do not cure this
deficiency of Jia (Final Act. 7—12), we also do not sustain these rejections of
claims of claims 5—7, 9, and 12—15 under § 103(a).
Rejection V
The Examiner finds that Goodwin discloses a system comprising
support housing 12 having an interior surface bounding a compartment, and
5
Appeal 2017-002160
Application 14/627,780
a door movably mounted to the housing that covers openings in sidewalls 23
of the housing. Final Act. 13 (citing Goodwin 132, Figs. 1, 5). The
Examiner finds that Goodwin discloses that the system further comprises
flange 58 (rack) disposed on the door so as to be at least partially disposed
outside the compartment formed by the interior surface of housing 12. Final
Act. 13 (citing Goodwin Fig. 1). The Examiner thus finds that flange 58
corresponds to the rack recited in claim 19. Final Act. 13.
However, as Appellant points out, Goodwin discloses that flange 58
(rack) is entirely disposed within the internal compartment formed by
support housing 12, rather than being disposed on a door movably mounted
to housing 12 so as to be at least partially disposed outside the compartment,
as required by claim 19. App. Br. 11—12 (citing Goodwin 132, Figs. 1—5).
We find no disclosure or description of a door in Goodwin other than
Goodwin’s disclosure that a door can selectively cover an access port
formed in the sidewall or floor of support housing 12. Goodwin 132. The
Examiner does not explain how flange 58 (rack) could be positioned on such
a door covering an access port in housing 12, nor does the Examiner identify
any disclosure in Goodwin that would have suggested such an arrangement.
Accordingly, the Examiner does not establish that Goodwin’s
disclosure of flange 58 disposed entirely within an internal compartment
formed by support housing 12, and disclosure of a door covering an access
port in the sidewall or floor of the housing, would have fairly suggested to
one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Appellant’s invention disposing
flange 58 on a door movably mounted to housing 12 such that flange 58
would be at least partially disposed outside the compartment, as required by
claim 19.
6
Appeal 2017-002160
Application 14/627,780
Therefore, the Examiner’s evidence and explanation are insufficient to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness of the subject matter recited in
claim 19 within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), and we consequently do
not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of this claim.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—4, 8, 11, 16—18, and
21 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) and § 102(e), and the rejections of claims 5—7,
9, 12-15, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
REVERSED
7